I'll try to monitor mine in the next few days to see.  However, I'd warrant that mileage will vary widely between different bikes - especially between those closer to stock and those with intake/jetting/exhaust mods.  That said, it might be useful to also report significant mods, carried weight (rider and luggage/contents), altitude, and tire inflation.  Then you'll have lots of information to juggle for a semi-reliable answer.

Thanks I forgot about the fact that a lot of people have mods.  I want to mainly know the mileage, how you shift and what mods you have and the weight of the rider and cargo.

OK now you opened a complex issue.
We have argued about fuel economy w/ pals.
Obviously, auto manufacturers had to go w/ EFI to meet CAFE averages, but our 650s still have carbs.
They say "An engine gets best economy at peak torque" and don't quite agree.
Sure, if you have a motor coupled to a CVT (constantly variable tranny) or a hybrid where the motor can run a steady, or narrow rpm range.

In the 60's some cars like old 'Cudas and Impalas had a vacuum gage in the dash, showing max "economy” at max manifold vacuum. My 1st car had one and you get max economy indicated by using the least throttle to get the vehicle to cruise speed, now you can think about operating at the torque peak of the motor.
The point was a hopped up motor w/ a torque (or power, yeah I know not the same, pick one) peak way up the tach is NOT going to get good fuel economy. You don’t need max torque, you only need enough torque to balance the equation force = drag, some lower number. (drag= aero, mechanical & rolling friction)
Another example was my old 350 Kawy, w/ whittled pistons and exhaust ports, added chambers and it got very happy up above 6k-10k.
It would drink gas if ridden around above 6k all day.
My friends failed to see that your vehicle does not need operate at the peak torque/power rpm for best fuel economy, but may likely get best fuel economy while in top gear at that rpm. Over the life of your ride, how much time is spent in that state vs. idling at stoplights and running up and down the gearbox?
What if your bike's motor peaks at 100mph? Aerodynamics alone dictates worse economy up there. Another factor Detroit has spent millions on. Now if the motor peaks up where aerodynamic start to kick in  (this is logarithmic/nonlinear drag so a little more speed requires more and more torque)
So practically, while using as little throttle as possible shift into the next gear ASAP until you get into high gear and keep it below 60. If you can find a small manifold vacuum gauge, mount it up on the bar and keep the vacuum as high as possible while riding.
Once in high cog you will begin to see aerodynamics affects the intake vacuum and the resultant drop.
That where you wanna to be, high gear, just below significant aero drag for max economy or max intake vacuum in lower gears. A stock Savage w/rider is aerodynamically dirty. If you have a stock bike w/o a screen then you know about where aerodynamic drag starts eating into your economy and a vacuum gauge can show you  how to squeeze even more out.
Oh yeah above 60 mph, draft semis on the highway, it's worth 2-3 mpg in a Ford Crown Vic according to the mileage computer. 

I broke mine in bonestock and pulld down 70 mpg or better, very consistently. Now have apehangers, open exhaust, no airbox door, and the filthy original aircleaner. Stock jets and spacer, air screw out an additional two turns or so. Mileage has tanked to the 40s-60s depending on how high I wind it out before shifting. I tend to wind it up, if I don't, around here I'll be a road pizza. NW drivers are crazy, if you ride here, learn how to speed shift. Milage suffers, but you stay alive. (NW meaning the Seattle metro area, where the 35 mph sign really means 85 mph)
-WD

Mr 650 wrote on 12/31/69 at 16:00:05:

I'll vouch for this from experience.  As I posted before, on a trip to Seattle on my GS450E/Quicksilver I ran mostly steady 45-50 on backroads in 6th gear and pulled an honest 80mpg.

Personal best on the Savage was 85 mpg. Worst has been 45 mpg.
-WD

Not measured the '02 yet needs a few more miles on it - the '95 seems to do at least 40mpg no matter how heavy handed I am and close to 60mpg on long runs of 50-55 mph